RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- The Rev. Todd Pyle thought it was the perfect spot to baptize 12 new members of his church. The river was calm and shallow, and there was a shaded area offshore for people to stand.

"It was a very serene place," he said. "It was special."

But officials at the Falmouth Waterfront Park, a public park just outside Fredericksburg, weren't pleased. They tried to break up the ceremony, claiming it might be offensive to nearby swimmers or other people using the park. Pyle was able to finish the baptism, but then he was asked to leave.

The incident has outraged free-speech advocates.

"These people are being discriminated against because of the content of their speech," said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who heads the Christian Defense Coalition. "It's one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment I have ever seen."

Mahoney's group has threatened to file a lawsuit if the park refuses to allow future gatherings by religious groups, something for which the park admits it has no written policy.

Pyle said he chose to hold an outdoor baptism, still common in parts of the South, because his Cornerstone Baptist Church in Stafford lacks an indoor baptismal pool. He said few people seemed to notice the small congregation during the 30-minute ceremony May 23.

But park officials said religious groups seeking to perform a service in the park still need to apply for a permit or else gather under a shelter or inside.

"We don't want to tread on anybody's First Amendment or constitutional rights," said Brian Robinson, director of the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority. "What we try to discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs spontaneously."

John Whitehead, director of The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Virginia-based civil liberties organization, said that's a clear violation of the church members' constitutional rights.

"Could a church have a picnic in the park and sing hymns? Of course they could," he said. "Parks have been forums since time immemorial to do these types of things."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia also said in a statement: "If the park rules allow people to wade and swim in the river, then they must allow baptisms in the river."

Robinson said the park's board has formed a special committee to examine its policy and to put it in writing. If the church applies for the proper permit, he said it's "certainly possible" they would be allowed to use the river for another baptism.

Meanwhile, Pyle said he will find another place to hold outdoor baptisms.

"We're disappointed," he said. "Every single person that was baptized thanked me afterward, saying [the river] made their experience more meaningful."

When it's an obviously 1st amendment violation the ACLU will usually step in, even if it is for Christians. They are against us in general, but I think they are consistant enough that they will help when it is a clear 1st amendment violation.

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

What I want to know is where was the ACLU with the Moslem Prayers being broadcast over loud speakers??? The same people that "approved" of this are the same that would have been opposed if this happened to be a case where a christian church tried doing this.

I bet the ACLU would have been first on the seen & would have flown in thier out of state agitators to boldly defend the "seperation of church & state" if this were christians doing this & not moslems. I wish the boys & girls in the ACLU would try to be more consistant & fair. Instead, they go after the christians most of the time & sspend thier time defending groups like NAMBLA.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

I bet the ACLU would have been first on the seen & would have flown in thier out of state agitators to boldly defend the "seperation of church & state" if this were christians doing this & not moslems.

I bet that if some Christian group did the same, the ACLU would have no choice but to follow its own precedent.

I'm not trying to defend the ACLU here, but the best way to make someone do something is to show them that they have no choice but to do it based upon their own words and actions, otherwise they lose credibility.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

The ACLU doesn't want to be clearly pinned as anti-Christian (thinking men know better). Thus they will pretend to defend the first amendment rights of a Christian from time to time.

Joe Zollars

Maybe Joe, just maybe, the ACLU is defending the rights of these Christians. I hate to break it to you, but there is a huge possibilty that this isn't some liberal conspiracy to trick conservative Christians into thinking the ACLU is on their side, when it really isn't.

There are times when the ACLU has done things that aren't exactly in line with the liberal agenda. For example defending the rights of KKK members to have a march on public property.

It is obvious that the ACLU is liberal, and the majority of what it does is totally contrary to Christian teachings and values, but I wouldn't waste my time creating some conspiracy theory to try to explain these rare occasions when the ACLU acutally does the right thing.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

Ben, don't read so much into what I say. The simple fact is, these peole hate Christianity. Their master inspires them to do so, whether they realize it or not. The fact they defend Christians from time to time is simply a bluff, whether intentional or not. These people don't care for the rights of Christians.

You mention the Klan, one should wonder why the vast majority of us Southrons don't support them but the ACLU does. HMMM.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

You are absolutely correct. The ACLU needs to throw us a bone every once in a while to try to convince the public that it isnt totally anti-Christian. But, we do know better. Years ago the ACLU defended the Klu Klux Klan only to appear in their eyes as balancing the scales. If one takes ALL of the cases the ACLU takes one could easily find a hard agenda against Christianity in general.

There's a difference between being "anti-Christianity" and "anti-everything".

I agree for the most part. The problem though is that the ACLU has an extreme secular/athiestic approach to everything, so naturally they are going to have many inside the organization with a tendancy to assault christianity the most. I think this has been very appearant with the kind of cases they choose to take & those they ignore.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

So basically you guys don't think the ACLU would get involved if it were a christian church praying in the name of jesus over loud speakers forcing others to hear?

This is such an old issue. First off, it isn't prayers; it calling people to come pray, just like church bells (except Muhammed didn't like bells). Second, the church bell version of this has been going on for decades. The north side of the National Cathedral bell chambers is sealed because of Drew Pearson complaining about the noise back in the '60s. I have no idea if the ACLU got involved in these controversies on the side of the churches, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.